It's All About Inquiry: Understanding the Social Studies Standards, C3 Framework and Disciplinary Literacy Essentials  

By Melissa Brooks-Yip, Coordinator of Instruction, and Amy Olmstead-Brayton, Coordinator of Assessment Services, Washtenaw ISD

With the adoption of the Michigan Social Studies standards in the spring of 2019, we began receiving requests for support as schools and districts considered how their social studies curriculum may need to change. In preparing for our work, we realized that while many teachers were aware of at least one of the guiding documents, their depths of understanding varied. For this reason, most were not considering how all three documents could be used as tools to guide instruction and assessment. Additionally, we had to honor the fact that while we all agreed with the guiding principles described in the C3, the day-to-day practices in our classrooms and schools looked much different. We came to understand that in order to have classrooms driven by inquiry, we would also have to explore our underlying beliefs about assessment and instruction. 

Our own continued study of the three documents reminded us that they are written for different audiences, at different times, yet are meant to work in conjunction for a solid structure from which to guide the teaching of the social studies disciplines. The purpose of the Michigan K-12 Standards for Social Studies is to “promote the knowledge, skills, intellectual processes, and dispositions required of people to be actively engaged in fulfilling their responsibility of civic participation…describe what students should know and be able to do in order to succeed in college, career, and civic life.” The Standards make it clear that they are not a state curriculum, but are to be “coupled with the Arc of Inquiry delineated in the C3 Framework” (MDE, 2019, p. 3). The C3 Framework “provides guidance to states on upgrading state social studies standards to include the application of knowledge within the disciplines of social studies” and is centered on an Inquiry Arc, supporting disciplinary concepts to support students in knowing, analyzing, explaining and arguing about challenges in our world (2019, p. 6). The Essential Practices for Disciplinary Literacy Instruction in the Secondary Classroom are “research supported instructional practices that have been shown to increase student achievement and/or engagement with academic literacies” (MAISA, 2019, p.1)  The Social Studies-specific Essentials name Inquiry-based Instruction as the first essential, framing “social science problems or questions to help establish purposes for students to read and write beyond being expected to do so (MAISA, 2019,  p. 19). While reading the three documents side by side (by side!), we notice the themes of engagement and inquiry jumping out, which is where we begin our work with teachers on understanding the documents and preparing to use them. 

For many educators, getting to a place of understanding how these documents proposed learning through inquiry meant first looking at their own assessment literacy understandings and practices. How might the formative assessment process be used to guide their instruction and support student involvement? Beginning with a clear understanding of the Standards, teachers could consider the many ways that students might demonstrate mastery as well as the necessary steps to get them there. It also meant a deeper understanding of their disciplinary literacy. Through exploring the Essentials, teachers were reminded of the purpose of studying their discipline. Furthermore, they were able to recognize the many ways our students can engage with sources as well as the variety of perspectives that students may encounter or express in the discipline of Social Studies. In addressing instruction and assessment in these ways, we were able to highlight some of the impacts of teacher bias as we consider how educators develop and deliver curriculum. Through their study of the Standards, teachers were able to engage in conversations about what concepts and skills were truly necessary to teach at their grade levels, which they were teaching simply out of personal interest, or which they might have been excluding entirely. As they studied the Essentials, many began to see the potentially rich sources and multiple perspectives that they had previously excluded because they didn’t align to their understanding of “text” or their own experience in the discipline. With these understandings, we hoped to guide teachers to developing inquiries and classrooms that were more Culturally Relevant. Not only allowing students to have access to multiple perspectives through instruction, but also coaching teachers to accurately assess the many different and nuanced ways their students could show mastery of their learning. 

When tackling this project ourselves as learners, we identified key questions we needed to explore. We knew we needed to facilitate study, discussion and work that would get at the value and importance of the balance between instruction and assessment. On Day 1, our purpose was to determine:

• The purpose, history, and context of the C3 Framework, the MI Social Studies Standards, the Essential Practices;

• How the Framework, Standards and Essentials are connected and how they work together;

• Vocabulary terms we need to pay attention to for understanding;

• Standards: organization, how to read, differences between old and new and how to deconstruct 

We knew that if we wanted to teachers to use these resources, they first had to be aware of what they were. While we provided a brief summary of each including their purpose, history, and context (as described above), we also wanted to provide teachers with time to begin exploring for themselves and discovering how all three documents may be connected and how they may use them in their own work. Being mindful that this inquiry takes time, we ended our day with additional time for teachers to deconstruct one of their grade level standards to better understand the learning objectives they held for students. Teacher feedback showed us that teacher’s knowledge in one day mainly increased on simply understanding the who, what, where, when, why of the three documents and connections between the three, an introduction to breaking down standards, the Inquiry Arc of the C3, and a working definition of disciplinary literacy from the Essentials.

On Day 2, we scaffolded up to these essential questions:

• How might the Framework, Standards, and Essential Practices be used to improve instruction and assessment?
• How can we use the C3 Framework to develop pedagogical content knowledge?
• How can we apply the Framework and Essentials to develop/plan for instruction and assessment that is aligned to the standards?

Once teachers had a general understanding of all three documents and their purposes from Day 1, we began to consider the ways in which they could actually use the documents to improve their own practice. Teachers were able to more deeply explore both the C3 Framework and Essentials to begin considering how they may connect and offer strategies for teaching the Standards through inquiry. Using the Standards, the Arc of Inquiry, the suggested K-12 Pathways, as well as the Essentials, teachers began reenvisioning their own instruction and assessment. By the end of the day, teachers reported the K-12 Pathways were “enlightening,” the C3 format “became a reality,” and some could see the “blending of all” documents to begin being able to “apply learning through inquiry” in the classroom. 

Our Day 3 focusing question centered on additional time to explore the application of this new knowledge- How can I use the Standards, C3 Framework, and the Essentials to plan for high quality teaching and learning? With all of the learning that we had done in our first two days, we knew that teachers were already developing incredible ideas of how to improve teaching and learning in their classrooms, and educators ourselves, we also knew how crucial it was to provide them uninterrupted time to process and begin planning out these ideas. Having the bulk of facilitation for reading and understanding in Days 1 and 2, and ideally wanting to support high-quality, inquiry-driven learning, our most valuable resources were the dedicated teachers sitting before us. Confident that given the new knowledge they had combined with time, they would know how to begin using their learning to change instruction and assessment in order to support student learning through inquiry in the classroom.

While three days to examine these documents with an inquiry lense is a luxury of time, we also know it isn’t enough to overhaul an entire social studies curriculum in a classroom, building or district. After our three days, teachers reported looking to continue working “toward combination, balance and implementation” of the three documents, and when shifting toward inquiry based teaching, “how to get out of the way for students.”

References

C3 Framework. (2019, December 10). Retrieved from https://www.socialstudies.org/c3 

Essential Practices for Disciplinary Literacy Instruction in the Secondary Classroom: Grades 6 to 12. (n.d.). Retrieved from MAISA https://literacyessentials.org/literacy-essentials/the-essentials/essential-instructional-practices-for-disciplinary-literacy-grades-6-to-12/

Michigan K-12 Social Studies Standards. Retrieved from MDE https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Final_Social_Studies_Standards_Document_655968_7.pdf